A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Although a rice distributor operated a rice distributor by receiving or borrowing money from the victim, he did not return money to the victim as a result of failure of business due to lack of business accommodation, etc., and did not intend to acquire money from the victim. 2) Even if the criminal intent is recognized, even though the amount returned to the victim, etc. was less than the amount stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts, thereby recognizing all the amount stated in the facts charged as the amount obtained through deception.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is based on the assertion that there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history of the accused before and after the crime, the environment, the details and contents of the crime, and the process of implementing the transaction,

(B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit. ① The defendant did not have any experience in engaging in rice distribution business at the time of receiving or borrowing money from the victim, and there was no special property or income between 2004 and 2007 before and after the crime of this case. ② The majority of the operation funds of D and W, a rice distributor operated by the defendant, was the amount invested or borrowed from the victim (the defendant was the victim's suicide from June 2005 when investing or borrowing money from the victim).